Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

In "The Authoritarians",a lot of Bob Altemeyer's study looks at what he calls "authoritarian followers" - the people that blindly follow authoritarian leaders. He says the worst combination is a large group of authoritarian followers following a "social dominator" who will say anything to gain/keep power. He's developed a series of questions that provide what he calls a Right Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA). Be very, very afraid of someone who is both a high RWA and a high social dominator.

Not that we have any place like that currently. Not at all. Can't imagine it.

I will follow up your Wikipedia suggestion on Moral Foundations Theory.

The threat of sea level rise is very serious and insidious, ihho. However some people out there probaly rationalise the issue by saying to themselves "its a slow process, we will adapt, buildings get rebuilt anyway".

It may be worth doing an article explaining why this a simplistic and deluded view in numerous ways. It could amass all the relevant research links.

Taminos material was interesting. J Bell says global warming causes both droughts and floods, heat and cold, so is ridiculous nonsense. Various people gave very good, if predictable rebuttals.

What intrigues me is whether Bell is truly sceptical, or knows perfectly well that a warming world could cause seemingly contradictory responses, and has simply trawled through the global warming issue to find anything that might confuse people who aren't very bright, or are easily lead because their politics makes them sceptics. Either way, it leaves us little option but to waste time with rebuttals.

Regarding the authoritarian personality. Moral foundations theory on wikipedia has some interesting and credible information as well.

Blind obedience is a terrible, dangerous thing and very authoritarian people are difficult for many of us to live with, yet others actually seem attracted to these personalities.

I think the origins of authoritarianism are simply that its a basic parenting skill. I think it just becomes very excessive in some people, possibly because it reinforces conservative values, or they were over disciplined as children, so became very authoritarian themselves. Left and right economic movements can both have authoritarian leaders.

However excessively authoritarian people are very resistant to acknowledging their problem.

Upon further reflection I am adding to/changing my recommendation/hope for you.

I hope you will change your mind about what is acceptable and be able to correctly make statements like the example correction I provided without having to refer to yourself as part of the problem.

The future you indicate is indeed a 'possible future', especially if deliberately irresponsible and harmful leaders, like the current Winners of leadership in the USA, achieve more undeserved Winning in other locations.

The future of humanity requires more people actively trying to help others become more aware and better understanding of what is really going on and the corrections/changes required to actually improve the future for humanity.

Admittedly the required corrections have become significant for those who wasted the past several decades trying to prolong their ability to enjoy their life in ways that were understandably unsustainable and harmful to others, especially damaging to the future of humanity. The required corrections will indeed be perceived negatively by those people, but they will understand why they deserve a negative consequence, even if they fight against having to suffer it.

Those developed unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity will have to be corrected. Humanity has to have a better future.

Hopefully humanity is turning around. While you focus on finding evidence to try to justify continued reluctance to change direction, I see a declining number of wealthy people being able to easily impress people into supporting their understandably unsustainable and harmful desires.

The worst case scenario is indeed continued damaging winning by the wealthy and powerful who are opposed to the better understanding of the changes required by the constantly improved understanding of climate science (like the deliberate ignorance that allowed the USA sub-prime mortgage debacle to become the massive disaster it developed into).

Hopefully real responsible leaders will over-power the harmful less responsible pursuers of competitive advantage, like the ones in the USA who recently won the ability to do more harm to the future of humanity, to incrementally reverse progress towards a better future in their pursuit of damaging Private Interests.

We should all try to help others be more helpful, aware, and better understanding of what is really going on and how they think about the acceptability of things. That is key to over-powering those who try to Win by keeping people unaware, incorrectly aware, or misunderstanding what is going on.

I also sometimes recommend the following web page and the book and oher materials contained on it. The book is very long - start by reading the web page itself (short). The writer is a (now-retired?) social psychologist, who spent a career studying the authoritarian mindset.

Some may consider all the costs of adaptation as "good for the economy". After all, we live in a throw-away society for many cheaply-made consumer goods, and buying new ones creates jobs for someone.

If we treat all the land and development that will be flooded due to sea level rise as "throw-away" goods, then large amounts of money will have to be spent to replace them. That will add to the GDP, at least locally. Business is booming!

One might ask where all that money comes from, though. Well, governments can just borrow it can't they? Disaster relief! The whole global economy can run on money governments borrow to provide disaster relief. I'm sure there won't be any problems with that.

Do you realize that "adaptation" to sea level rise means moving the majority of the world's great cities inland many miles, hundreds of millions or billions of refugees with no-where to go and the inundation of a substantial amount of the best farming land in the world? In Miami alone over a trillion dollars of real estate is in danger with sea level rise that is possible by 2100 and sea level will continue to increase after 2100. With a 1.5C increase Miami is doomed, the question is how long it will take to inundate the city.

Can you provide data to show that there will be enough farmland left after 2 meters of sea level rise to feed the current world population? Will you be willing to accept several million refugees from Bangladesh into Canada?

You say "Maybe adaptation is not such a bad thing. It will keep our populace busy amidst automation removing jobs."

People will be active building all those new cities on current farmland. Teaching all those refugees English will employ a number of others. You are blind to the consequences of the path that you are in favor of.

Let us suppose Miami is inundated and two trillion dollars of real estate is destroyed. Four million people move to Kansas and spend a trillion dollars to build new housing that is half as good as their old houses. Economists count that as adding a trillion to GDP. The people have worse housing and had to spend a trillion dollars that they could have used for other, better stuff. Be careful what you wish for.

Please describe where you think a hundred million refugees can be placed worldwide. Keep in mind all the complaints from about a million refugees from Syria.

What you think is irrelevant in this context, what is relevant is what you can demononstrate with evidence. So accusing Skeptical Science of bias is intellectually dishonest. I could go on about your use of rhetorical questions and sloganeering, but I think I have made my point.

You can demonstrate your appeal to your own authority by posting citations to your publications easily enough.

Thank you for the reply, but you did not answer my specific questions.

However, the lack of a direct answer is answer enough.

All I will add is that you should correct the way you state what is going on, with the following as an example of the more accurate way to say it:

"Basically acknowledged that my best guess is thatI am not concerned that the incrementalism that we see in the most irresponsible government actions around the world (including the US - due to the deliberate lack of responsible leadership in nations like the USA) will mean that we cannot meet the 2C threshold by 2100(the requirement is 2.0 C increase, not 2.0 C at 2100 with more to follow). This will mean that ifbased on the developed climate science the climate model predictions of accelerating rates of sea level and temperature are correct that wethose others in the future (that I do not care about) will be spending more money on adaptation (because people did not 'have' to care about how their desired pursuit of a better Present for themselves was harmimg the fuure of humanity)."

I did respond to you but it seems that my comment either did not make it onto the website for some technical reason or was deleted although I do not think it was in any way inflammatory.

Basically acknowledged that my best guess is that the incrementalism that we see in government actions around the world (including the US) will mean that we cannot meet the 2C threshold by 2100. This will mean that if the climate model predictions of accelerating rates of sea level and temperature are correct that we will be spending more money on adaptation.

Maybe adaptation is not such a bad thing. It will keep our populace busy amidst automation removing jobs. When you look at the renewal that happened in Germany and Japan after WWII and the advantage it provided to them with modern equipment and facilities (look at China last 30 years) you sometimes wonder whether reconstruction is not something that we humans require to keep us going. Kind of like ants and anthills. You kick one over and away they go rebuilding it.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Re your first paragraph, your response to OPOF was not deleted by a Moderator.

Thanks Nigel. I had reported on Nextra's announcement earlier based upon it having been reported on Climatewire. Still unclear to me on the battery storage issue but obviously that would be a major breakthrough.

There appear to be several pathways to this, but one common factor is just actually reading some sensible books, or attending a well presented lecture by some climate expert. So facts do change some peoples minds.

Instead, some people are reading climate denialist websites, and think tank echo chamber websites because its easier and free, which is unfortunate. NASA has great material on their website on the basics of climate change, presented more like a book.

Perhaps people are suspicious of climate material in the daily news media, out of a basic distrust of the traditional print media. I think such distrust can be overstated. News media are like anyone, they don't want to get things constantly wrong, and be embarrassed constantly. You just have to read between the lines and use some sense.

The other thing is, and I say this reluctantly, Al Gores movie probably didn't convince many Republicans for obvious reasons, because of Gores strong political affiliations. However it was still a very skilled and 99% accurate presentation imho.

While people should look at the information on its merits, rather than the source of the information, ideally the movie would have been better coming from National Geographic or someone similar. But it's all history now. And its hard to know, because a movie from some established movie company could have been too dry, and not grabbed peoples attention like Gores movie did.

The most important thing for everyone to understand, admit and have guide their actions is that:

the only Good Purpose/Objective is actions that understandably improve the future for humanity.

any actions that are harmful to future generations are simply unacceptable, no matter how beneficial a portion of the current day population consider the harmful actions to be (the most appalling claim making includes making claims that current day perceptions of wealth inevitably grow into bigger better perceptions in the future, or that it is OK to create future negative consequences if the current day benefits are perceived to be bigger).

If that completely universal understanding and acceptance ever develops, everyone honouring that understanding and never tempted to push a limit, there is no need for refereeing (or policing, or military power anywhere, or charities attempting to correct the inequities that otherwise develop). Of course that is a fairy tale future. And it is why ideologies based on the belief that 'Better Results will develop if people are freer to believe what they want and do as they please' have no real future.

As the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" bluntly declared, the lack of concern for the future generations of humanity, and any other group that has no power to 'effectively get even with the ones benefiting from causing harm or higher risks of causing harm', is the reason so many unsustainable and harmful activities develop popular and profitable support. And those 'unsustainable and harmful to Others' ways of doing things are also easier and cheaper than more responsible ways of acting which makes it ore difficult for more responsible ways of pursuing profit to Win.

And once an activity develops significant undeserved popularity or profitability it can be very difficult to correct the incorrect development.

The much bigger climate change impact correction problem faced by today's generation of humanity, bigger in magnitude and the required rate of correction (as exposed by the continuing to improve awareness and understanding of climate science), is undeniably due to the lack of fair and responsible action by many of the most fortunate humans since the 1980s, since the time it became clear to all of those most fortunate humans that they 'had no Good Reason to continue to try to get away with what they had developed a damaging addiction to'.

"I agree about climategate. Private emails from other organisations would probably be much the same or worse. In fact, what surprised me about climategate is how little of substance was revealed. It actually convinced me more that scientists could be trusted. "

Libertarians and conservatives could perhaps look at the issues this way. First they often point out that the alleged problem with command and control hierarchical economies is that a central body can become over constricting, and cannot have enough information to make optimal economic decisions. (F Hayek, 1899 -1992 talked along these approximate lines). This is a fair criticism, although since the age of advanced computers this theory may no longer actually be entirely correct.

The idea of the market is to let individuals make free decisions and the market will decide what they buy and value. This enocurages innovation. (Adam Smith 1723 - 1790). I'm a fan of this basic theory fwiw.

The problem with the market is individuals can also do things that are very destructive to the community or other individuals.

The solution is that markets must be policied, and need boundaries and regulations imposed by government, or in a few limited situations organisations can be self policing. Behaviours known to be destructive to the community and other individuals must be illegal, but only if its harming them in significant and material ways ( JS Mill 1806 - 1873).

If a specific behaviour, like using a dangerous material in certain situations is banned, this in no way stops innovation and individual initiative, because it doesn't stop people using that material in other situations. Since the basic purpose of markets is to encourage innovation, market rules do not damage markets, provided they are sensible rules. That is the main thing people need to know along with what OPOF says.

The development of better understanding regarding climate science is an important 'incremental' step for a person who has developed a strong preference for Conservative/Libertarian beliefs.

I suggest the next incremental step in better understanding is the acceptance that the required objective of responsible leadership (in politics, business, media, academia ...), is to fairly correct what has incorrectly developed to limit the impact on future generations to 2.0 C increase.

And the next logical increment of better understanding is the recognition of the failure of the Competitive Marketplace to responsibly respond for the benefit of the future of humanity. Consumerism and materialism competition to appear to be more prosperous than Others can incline many people to develop more desires to be freer to believe what they want and do as they please (including excusing understandably harmful ways of Winning their desired Private Interests to the detriment of Others including all those future generations of humanity who have no ability to effectively get 'even with them').

The understanding of the harmfulness and unsustainability of the burning of fossil fuels was undeniably internationally established at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The urgency of correcting the problem of CO2 from burning fossil fuels has become better understood since then. And the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" left no doubt about the main excuse for lack of responsible leadership by the winners in political and economic market competitions, a lack of action to limit harm done to future generations was popular and profitable because it could be gotten away with.

The development of understanding since 1987 leading to the Kyoto Accord leaves less doubt about what acceptable/unacceptable leadership actions are. And the Paris Agreement tightens up that understanding.So, since 1987 (or earlier), the 'actions of already fairly fortunate people to still tried to get significant further benefit from the burning of fossil fuels rather than correcting their ways' is obviously a flaw in the Socio-economics of the Marketplace. It is as if the 'Invisible Hand was biased toward being harmful'. It is a result that clearly cannot be blamed on 'too much regulation of the marketplace games people play'. Though admittedly some 'regulations' like the attempts by some USA states to 'restrict the sale of Tesla vehicles in their state through regional regulation' are understandably deliberately harmful.

That leads to the next increment of better understanding, the marketplace requires Helpful Refereeing; monitoring and enforcement that discourages harmful actions and encourages helpful actions.

Those are admittedly big steps for some people to take, but those are logically the steps that they must take if they truly want to be helpful rather than harmful or irrelevant.

Though everyone agrees to use the term incrementalism, I am almost certain that the likes of NorrisM do not agree that the objective of the incremental change must be limiting total global impacts to 2.0 C.

However, NorrisM's comment @69 implied he was still considering a response to my requests for a response. But, my comment @70 may have 'pinned him down too much' for him to bother to try to ceate a reasonable sounding response. Or he may have considered my comment @90 to be an accurate understanding of his position.

But NorrisM has commented since then in ways consistent with an understanding that the type of incrementalism he would support is actions that would likely significantly fail to meet the objective of limiting future impacts to 2.0 C increase.

As I have mentioned in an earlier comment, doing less action earlier to meet an objective requires more action later. The likes of NorrisM appear to like the idea of having to do less (leaving more for others to do later), and even hoping to get away with prolonging their ability to benefit from the understood to be unacceptable activity or, even worse, increasing their ability to benefit from the damaging activity, developing an even bigger challenge that Others have to deal with.

The understanding of the harmfulness and unsustainability of the burning of fossil fuels was undeniably internationally established at the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The urgency of correcting the problem of CO2 from burning fossil fuels has become better understood since then. And the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" left no doubt about the main excuse for lack of responsible leadership by the winners in political and economic market competitions, a lack of action to limit harm done to future generations was popular and profitable because it could be gotten away with.

The development of understanding since 1987 leading to the Kyoto Accord leaves less doubt about what acceptable/unacceptable leadership actions are. And the Paris Agreement tightens up that understanding.

So, since 1987 (or earlier), anyone who was already fairly fortunate but still tried to get significant further benefit from the burning of fossil fuels rather than correcting their ways has no excuse. Their developed perceptions of prosperity or opportunity deserve to be shattered, the sooner the better to 'be fairer' about achieving the undeniable required objective, fairly limiting global total impact to 2.0 C.

I was disappointed to get to the end of this post only to find that further discussion had been terminated. I was hoping to challenge Alchemyst to read a fascinating debate that took place on the curryetc website based upon a recent paper by Peter Lang. Lang's questionable premise is that the "root cause" of the demise of the nuclear industry in the US were anti-nuke protesters which caused over regulation. The paper is found in the December 2017 topics on the curry website. I had been spending my time reading all 256 posts on that website before I commented here.

However, Lang did not anticipate that someone with over 35 years experiencer in managing construction of nuclear plants in the US would take him on. He goes by the name Beta Blocker for reasons explained in the blog. His basic premise is that the poor managment processes of Westinghouse and others were largely to blame for the massive cost overruns which really sunk the industry and provided the fodder for the smarter nuclear protesters who appeared at hearings.

My suggestion to respond to the suggestion of michael sweet was going to propose that you let Peter Lang publish his paper on this website and let others take a run at him. I understand that there has been some "history" with Lang on this website which might complicate my suggestion. Lang does not do well against Beta Blocker.

There was one other commenter on that blog who was very knowledgeable called Ristvan. His view in a nutshell is that concrete and steel sunk the nuclear industry.

But the "supply" issue of nuclear sources suggested by Abbott does not seem to be the real issue given that the new nuclear reactors will use 99% rather than 1% of the energy in uranium. Beta Blocker is clearly retired now but is in communication with those active in the industry. I get the sense that Small Modular Reactors do show promise. He also deals with storage issues.

I undertstand that this post may not see the light of day but I wanted to support michael sweet's suggestion of a paper on this topic.

I believe you have my email as part of registration on this website if you want to reply without posting.

could we rely on the grey econonmy here. I was renovating a house and had a tonne of timber to dipose, I'm ashamed to say I had the choice of paying $50 for the authorites to dispose or find an alterntive. we had a bonfire one summers night. thinking that this saved me money the next tonne we dumped it at the front of the house, spread the word that there was free firewood it took 2 weeks for he heap to just vanish.

Burning wood in power stations is probay less efficient than wood burning stoves n the home. They convege the population into foragers

Here is a good 2017 article: "The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective," Kurschke & Liddell, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Full text is available both in browser and as downloadable PDF.

I don't have remotely enough knowledge of nuclear power technology to write an article. But Alchemyst, it appears you or anyone else are being given a golden opportunity here to submit something.

I would just suggest an article needs to obviously be based on verifiable credible source material, with internet links, and should mention within the body of the article the problems as well as the benefits of nuclear, and in a full, open way. If it doesn't, it will be cut to pieces by readers, and called one sided. If its an article that is open and transparent, it may serve some useful purpose. I don't care if the tone of the article is negative or positive on the issue, as long as its upfront like this.

But IMHO the writer is perfectly entitled to reach their conclusions firmly for or against nuclear power and as strongly as they wish, and is not expected to sit on the fence.

I remain a bit sceptical of nuclear power, but hopefully not closed minded.

Riduna, I must admit my instinctive reaction to BECCS isn't positive, so I need to see some convincing defence of the idea.

However while BECCS makes electricity twice as expensive it is also drawing down atmospheric CO2. It would be interesing to know how much value this adds in dollar terms somehow?

I agree no generating company is going to choose BECCS at this stage, unless they are amazingly green orientated. The only way to really implement BECCS is government command and control, or government subsidies that make it attractive enough. Neither are wrong in principle imho, however BECCS would need to prove itself robustly first.

Try telling the people in the white house. They can't seem to comprehend climate change, and that water can become a scarce resource.

All politicians think about is next months profits, their own popularity, and that white man has all the answers. And they think a lot about their campaign donors. Politicians are all sock puppets for their campaign donors.

it is great to hear a man from Conservative supporting climate change as a reality.i wish the congressman to follow Jerry Taylor's example,including The President Trump and support climate change actions.

I must inform you that the BBC and Wikipedia are not peer reviewed sources. You have provided no peer reviewed data to support your claims. Abbott is peer reviewed. Your BBC link is for school children. It does not give the full formulation of the conntrol rods. Boron cannot be fashioned into rods by itself. It must be mixed with and coated by other exotic materials to form the control rods. You must account for all the materials put into the plant, not just a few of them.

The breeder reactors you support are run at extremely high temperatures with extreme neutron fluxes. All the piping, valves,fuel rods and the container vessel must be made of exotic metals and alloys to withstand the extreme conditions. We have only the unsupported word of an anonymous person on the internet that all these materials exist against the peer reviewed study of Abbott, who is an expert in the field, that they do not exist. You have provided no information to determine if the metals in the valves, piping and container are in sufficient supply to build. We have only your personal assertion that the control rods can be manufactured.

You are repeating yourself without providing supporting data. That is sloganeering. You have provided no peer reviewed data to support your claims, that is trolling.

Moderator Response:

[PS] It is time to wrap this discussion. This site is not a good forum for discussions of pros and cons of nuclear power (BraveNewClimate did that better) and it is offtopic for this thread. If we had a thread based on peer-reviewed literature concerning nuclear power, then the science could be discussed there but so far we have not been able to find an author to write one. Volunteers welcome.

For those interested see below. Howeve Sweet you are trolling, most people have been into the argument on one side or the other, but you even when your statment has been shown to be without basis

My references in the earler post to nigelj, you now state

"note that you have provided no references that address Abbotts peer reviewed claims that not enough rare elements exist to build out nuclear power. None of your citations say how much of any metals are required to build the reactors you support. I have provided a reference to prove that enough materials exist to build out all needed renewable energy systems. Abbotts conclusion stands unchallenged."

I pass you onto Wikipedia where the status of Halfnium in civilian reactors is stated that it is hardly ever used and other materials are prefered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod

Control rods are used in nuclear reactors to control the fission rate of uranium and plutonium. They are composed of chemical elements such as boron, silver, indium and cadmium that are capable of absorbing many neutrons without themselves fissioning. Because these elements have different capture cross sections for neutrons of varying energies, the composition of the control rods must be designed for the reactor's neutron spectrum. Boiling water reactors (BWR), pressurized water reactors (PWR) and heavy water reactors (HWR) operate with thermal neutrons, while breeder reactors operate with fast neutrons.

Halfnium has excellent properties for reactors using water for both moderation and cooling. It has good mechanical strength, can be easily fabricated, and is resistant to corrosion in hot water.[9] Hafnium can be alloyed with other elements, e.g. with tin and oxygen to increase tensile and creep strength, with iron, chromium and niobium for corrosion resistance, and with molybdenum for wear resistance, hardness and machineability. Such alloys are designated as Hafaloy, Hafaloy-M, Hafaloy-N, and Hafaloy-NM.[10] The high cost and low availability of hafnium limit its use in civilian reactors, although it is used in some US Navy reactors. Hafnium carbide can also be used as an insoluble material with a high melting point of 3890 °C and density higher than that of uranium dioxide for sinking unmelted through corium.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Given that your discorse with Michael Sweet has devolved into name calling and given that you are now engaging in excessive repitition, it is time to shut down this discussion. Your future posts on this topic will be summarily deleted.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

Apparently I misread your post because you said "Sweet please try and stop insulting peoples inteligence" immediately after quoting me saying nuclear was much more expensive than renewable energy.

I am glad that we agree that nuclear energy cannot compete economically with renewable energy.

I note that you have provided no references that address Abbotts peer reviewed claims that not enough rare elements exist to build out nuclear power. None of your citations say how much of any metals are required to build the reactors you support. I have provided a reference to prove that enough materials exist to build out all needed renewable energy systems. Abbotts conclusion stands unchallenged.

Serious energy researchers do not consider significant amounts of nuclear energy in the mix in the future. In Smart Energy Europe (cited at least 75 times in less than 2 years from publication) the first of 9 steps to convert to full renewable energy is to remove nuclear energy from the system.

It's great to see someone like Jerry Taylor change his views. It just takes some careful reading on climate change. The climate scientists sceptical of agw are in a small minority, but can be quite loud and have impressive degrees. The trick is to check their claims very carefully, because all is not always as it seems.

As the article says the key thing is climate change threatens property, and both conservatives and libertarians are concerned with property rights. As more of a political moderate, I can definitely also relate to that view. Its excellent common ground right across the political spectrum.

"A final intriguing note: Robo says the company is hard at work on combining renewables with storage. “We recently submitted a bid at a very competitive price for a combined wind, solar, and battery storage product,” he said, “that is able to provide an around-the-clock, nearly firm, shaped product specifically designed to meet the customers’ needs.”

"On a Q4 earnings conference call on Friday, Robo [CEO of NextEra Energy] predicted that by the early 2020s, it will be cheaper to build new renewables than to continue running existing coal and nuclear plants" my emphasis.

Since capitol costs are so high for nuclear plants they are already more expensive than renewable energy. The builds at Georgia and South Carolina were supposed to prove that the nuclear industry could build on time and on budget. Two reactors have been abandoned half finished and far over budget. Westinghouse, the primary contractor, is bankrupt and the remaining build is near abandonment, way over budget and years behind schedule.

OPOF, many thanks for that tip on how to find the original research study.

So everyone is agreed on incrementalism. Its just the size of the increments!

I always thinks its better to just get started, and do something, than debate endlessly about problems. Things can always be modified in accordance with changing circumstances, or if results are not acceptable in some way.

Looking at history, consumption taxes don't normally cause the huge problems the scaremongers claim. One fear is that taxes become embedded and hard to reverse, however the climate issue means a carbon tax would eventually do its job, and would thus inevitably expire as alternative energy becomes abundant and permanent. Its not so much like a soft drink tax, that might be more a permanent fixture, designed just to pay for health costs.

The article John writes about @111 is regarding a study that was submitted to Nature Sustainability on 08 August 2017. It was published on 05 February 2018 (to get to the article you click on the Nature Sustainability link at the end of the article).

This is more recent than the 2016 article you referred to. And it is a very different type of evaluation. It is very applicable to climate science because it points out that “The most difficult biophysical boundary to meet is climate change: only 34% of countries are within the per capita boundary for this indicator.”

I will add that I also agree with incrementalism. That is basically what the Kyoto Accord followed by the Paris Agreement is. The Kyoto Accord was the first serious coordinated global effort by the most fortunate nations to show leadership on transitioning human activity away from the unsustainable and harmful burning of fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement was the next increment. It clarified the ultimate objective as keeping total impacts below the 2.0 C threshold, and aspiring to limit impacts on future generations to 1.5 C which almost certainly will require charitable actions (actions that do not benefit the ones paying for them to be done) that effectively reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The first increment of the Paris Agreement is the initial pledges of action by all nations. The next increments are the ratcheting up of the actions as required to have all nations equitably work on solving the problem, equitably including the understanding that those nations that benefited most from the current developed scale of the problem should be expected to do more to correct the problem.

The incremental application of measures like carbon taxes would be to start with a rate of taxation then observe the result. After a few years adjust the tax rate or implement other measures as required to get closer to achieving the required result (combined global actions limited to a 2.0 C increase). Repeat the increase of tax or implementation of other measures as required to meet the required objective. Note that less action done earlier means more action will be required later.

That is the expected result of the Paris Agreement - Continuing the Incrementalism after the first stage that was the efforts to meet the Kyoto commitments. Of course any nation that had members who deliberately resisted participating in correcting the incorrect developed ways of living after Kyoto would have developed a bigger current day challenge that now needs to be corrected. Since the need to transition from burning fossil fuels was well understood before Kyoto there is no reason for anyone to feel sorry for current day people who 'will suffer due to having to make more significant changes to 'fairly contribute to meeting the required global objective'. The real key is making sure that the ones who deserve to suffer most are actually the ones who suffer the most form the required correction.

Some people figured out what is inevitably going to have to happen if humanity is to sustainably develop a better future. But instead of supporting the education of the population about the required changes and correctly identifying who should change or suffer, they try to argue for incrementalism that will fail to limit the harm to others (including future generations), choosing to demand/declare that the required incrementalism is incrementalism that in no way negatively affects them (many of them actually understand that they deserve to be negatively affected by the required corrections of what has developed - they can be expected to fight the hardest against admitting what the appropriate objective is, using the popularity of profitable harmful unsustainable activities as their main excuse to defend those activities).

And what is undeniable is that more fortunate people who did not transition away from the burning of fossil fuels could gain a competitive advantage relative to those who more responsibly changed their ways. Deliberate attempts to get competitive advantage that way since Kyoto deserve a penalty. That will likely need to be corrected by targeted trade sanctions against those people who have shown a history of trying to Win that way. To 'be fair', it appears inevitable that targeted trade sanctions will be required to penalize things like attempts by people in nations like the USA, Canada, and Australia (the supposedly more advanced nations on the planet), to continue to benefit from the burning of coal (including exports of coal for burning elsewhere). And those actions targeting already fortunate people who continue to try to benefit from the burning of coal will likely need to incrementally be expanded to target already fortunate people who continue to try to benefit from the burning of bitumen, then oil, then natural gas, as required to achieve the agreed objective of 'fairly' limiting the harm done to future generations.

Alchemyst is quite elogious on China's nuclear program. I looked into it a little to see if the usual problems were better dealt with (delays and cost overruns) and was not so impressed. Alchemyst refered to Wikipedia, so I'm taking it as an acceptable source of information.

The Wiki on China nuclear program reveals a mixed picture. The first 3 links in post 21 refers to the CAP 1400 reactors, an evolution of the Westinghouse AP1000 design, set to be built at the Shidawoan site. One link is from 2014, the other 2016, the last from 2017 mentions the scaled down version of the Westinghouse design. The current Shidawoan installation is a proof of concept demonstration project, which was set to be connected to the grid in 2018. That first unit is a 200 MW scaled down version of the full size 1400 MW design. The CAP1400 design passed the IAEA generic reactor safety review in 2015 and construction was set to begin by the end of that year. However, as of 2017, construction has been postponed because of the significant delays in completing the AP1000, Westinghouse older design. Westinghouse was majority owned by Toshiba but has filed for bankruptcy, which could be a major hurdle in bringing the CAP1400 design into existence. My take is that enthusiasm for the AP1400 should wait at least until construction is well under way and we're nowhere close to that.

The problems with nuclear energy remain: it is extremely expensive, usually more than planned; construction takes a long time, once again usually more than planned. Plants have a limited life span, beyond 40-50 years the upkeep adds significant costs to production.

The CANDU (pressurized heavy water reactors pioneered in Canada) types of plants look like a good idea in theory, especially from the operational safety point of view, although tritium emissions need attention. The fact that they can draw from a variety of fue sources and recovered uranium also speaks in their favor. The CANDU6 reactors built in Quinshan can boast of their completion on schedule and on budget, refreshing among modern built facilities. Most such reactors are found in Ontario, and many have been decommissioned, sometimes at very high costs. Economic performance does not call for more enthusiasm than the yet-to-be-started AP1400. From the CANDU wiki:

"Based on Ontario's record, the economic performance of the CANDU system is quite poor.[according to whom?] Although much attention has been focussed on the problems with the Darlington plant, every CANDU design in Ontario went over budget by at least 25%, and average over 150% higher than estimated.[66] Darlington was the worst, at 350% over budget, but this project was stopped in-progress thereby incurring additional interest charges during a period of high interest rates, which is a special situation that was not expected to repeat itself."

Furthermore: "In 1998, Ontario Hydro calculated that the cost of generation from CANDU was 7.7 cents/kWh, whereas hydropower was only 1.1 cents, and their coal-fired plants were 4.3 cents. As Ontario Hydro received a regulated price averaging 6.3 cents/kWh for power in this period, the revenues from the other forms of generation were being used to fund the operating losses of the nuclear plants."

Nuclear is no panacea and does not deserve less careful consideration than any other solution.

Zwally et al 2015 took an unconventional approach to assessing the mass balance of Antarctica. Unlike other studies, before and since, that used satellite altimetry or satellite gravimetric methods, Zwally’s team chose to compare net snowfall accumulation to estimated ice discharge to the ocean. In order to do this type of analysis properly, 3 main things are needed:

1. It is critical to use the most optimal corrections for instrument biases (the ICESat data used need to have the appropriate saturation bias corrections to get real-world answers that are reproducible)2. The most-accurate densities of snow have to be used3. The most-optimal values for changes in bedrock elevation (GIA) in response to ice sheet mass changes have to be used

As has been since determined by multiple studies (A, B, C and D, listed following):

1. The ICESat bias corrections used by the Zwally team were appropriate for measuring sea ice, but not for measuring high altitude land-base ice sheets like found in Antarctica (the values returned for Lake Vostok alone were so unphysical that they should have made the entire study DOA)2. A value for snowfall density different than that determined by decades of land-based research was used3. The values used by the Zwally team to correct for GIA were too high by a factor of 2

As such, their results cannot be reproduced using well-established bias corrections, known snow densities and more appropriate values for GIA.

The values for the Antarctic ice sheet mass balance from NASA GRACE are the most current available (to January 2017). An ever-strengthening, consilient body of research using multiple methods all point to that conclusion.

Interestingly, previous research has shown that ice sheet mass contributions from land-based ice sheets have exceeded thermal expansion as the biggest contributor to global sea level rise. Recent research now has isolated the individual ice sheet contributions to global sea level rise.

Per Hsu and Velicogna 2017, between April 2002 and October 2014, the mass component of global mean sea level grew by about 1.8 millimeters per year, with 43 percent of the increased water mass coming from Greenland, 16 percent from Antarctica, and 30 percent from mountain glaciers. There is an additional ~1 mm per year of SLR coming from thermal expansion (H/T to Victor Zlotnicki).

@jef, I agree with your critiques of this article’s advancement of both reducing atmospheric carbon levels now, while also encouraging a low-carbon future, which it does without an inclusion of how individuals or groups might take action. You are absolutely correct in saying that what is needed is truth speaking to the masses, which is a “herculean task,” yet should be of utmost importance given climate change’s immediacy. The article discusses Antartica’s importance in being a reservoir of 70% of our world’s freshwater, with melting ice sheets and the resultant sea rise posing great danger to over 150 million people globally. Unfortunately, climate change is not at all fair, having perverse asymmetry of impacts and interests, meaning those who contribute the least are often impacted the most. The article alludes to this by describing the potential future threat to populated areas such as Florida and New York, but the “immediate and acute” threat small low-elevation islands are already facing, such as the Pacific Island Countries (PICs). Due to their fragile environments and often unstable economies, island nations tend to struggle greatly at bouncing back after a devastating natural disaster, for they simply do not have the resources to be resiliently reactive. Ten years ago, the World Bank created the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI) in order to establish risk assessment strategies, while developing pragmatic financial and technical applications to try and mitigate these islands’ susceptibility to disasters. As a prominent global development organization, The World Bank has an interest in lessening poverty seen around the world via sustainable solutions; but if major contributors to climate change are not working to lessen their carbon footprints, will such mitigation strategies truly be effective?

Zwally et al 2015 took an unconventional approach to assessing the mass balance of Antarctica. Unlike other studies, before and since, that used satellite altimetry or satellite gravimetric methods, Zwally’s team chose to compare net snowfall accumulation to estimated ice discharge to the ocean. In order to do this type of analysis properly, 3 main things are needed:

1. It is critical to use the most optimal corrections for instrument biases (the ICESat data used need to have the appropriate saturation bias corrections to get real-world answers that are reproducible)2. The most-accurate densities of snow have to be used3. The most-optimal values for changes in bedrock elevation (GIA) in response to ice sheet mass changes have to be used

As has been since determined by multiple studies (A, B, C and D, listed following):

1. The ICESat bias corrections used by the Zwally team were appropriate for measuring sea ice, but not for measuring high altitude land-base ice sheets like found in Antarctica (the values returned for Lake Vostok alone were so unphysical that they should have made the entire study DOA)2. A value for snowfall density different than that determined by decades of land-based research was used3. The values used by the Zwally team to correct for GIA were too high by a factor of 2

As such, their results cannot be reproduced using well-established bias corrections, known snow densities and more appropriate values for GIA.

The values for the Antarctic ice sheet mass balance from NASA GRACE are the most current available (to January 2017). An ever-strengthening, consilient body of research using multiple methods all point to that conclusion.

Interestingly, previous research has shown that ice sheet mass contributions from land-based ice sheets have exceeded thermal expansion as the biggest contributor to global sea level rise. Recent research now has isolated the individual ice sheet contributions to global sea level rise.

Per Hsu and Velicogna 2017, between April 2002 and October 2014, the mass component of global mean sea level grew by about 1.8 millimeters per year, with 43 percent of the increased water mass coming from Greenland, 16 percent from Antarctica, and 30 percent from mountain glaciers. There is an additional ~1 mm per year of SLR coming from thermal expansion (H/T to Victor Zlotnicki).

Hmm, if you are fixating on a outlier paper (Zwally 2015), then I suspect you are using extremely suspect sources for your information. Gravity and altimitry methods both have weaknesses (but different ones). A clever approach which reconciles the metholodies by a joint inversion of altmetry, gravity and GPS is Espanol et al 2016. Their approach demonstrates a sustained net mass loss of 84+/- 22 Gt/yr.

"How about helping the developing countries develop and solve an ongoing humanitarian crisis now that oh by the way is truly polluting the environment?" Why do you believe fixing climate (which is important way to help developing countries) is incompatiable with your perceived priorities?

Alchemyst coments about last summer sea ice extent. How about the current values?

NSIDC, February 6, 2018:

"January of 2018 began and ended with satellite-era record lows in Arctic sea ice extent, resulting in a new record low for the month. Combined with low ice extent in the Antarctic, global sea ice extent is also at a record low." (emphasis added)

Right now nuclear is safer than other sources of electricity. I just wonder how the statistics will look if multiple third world countries have reactors. It wont take many accidents to radically change the statistics per mwhr.

But listen. I'm not firmly opposed to nuclear power in principle. I have always said its an individual countries choice on what suits them. I doubt nuclear will become prolific enough for my worst fears about safety to materialise, so Im not too worried over the issue.

I agree safety it is a public perception thing. But you can hardly blame people. Like I said, nuclear accidents are shocking, and have a sort of disproportionate effect on our consciousness. Its the same as the way some people respond to islamic terrorism, they go batshit crazy. In fact more people in the USA are killed by lawn mower accidents each year on average. But its the unpredictability of terrorism and its gruesome nature that scares people, and much the same can be said of nuclear accidents, because they are just so unpredictable, deadly and the contamination is both a real problem, and an insidious sort of thing psychologically.

However its hard changing human nature, and so on that basis I suggest the nuclear industry needs a "gamechanger" technology in terms of safety, something that really makes a fresh start. You can't blame the green lobby. The general public look at the issues for themselves.

You quote the example of China, and rapid progress with nuclear power. Ok fair enough. Obviously in a dictatorship they don't care about any public opposition like in the west. This is great for the nuclear industry, do you really want to live under a dictatorship? And this dictatorship has made a mess of their environment in other respects.

I also wonder how many safety shortcuts are made in China to build the reactors that fast.

Western countries are free market democracies. I like that on the whole. People have a right to protest and long may this remain. Safety standards are likely going to be better than China and if this slows down construction, "so be it".

Electricity generators in America for example make the choice of nuclear or wind power, and I think it should be left to them to make that choice. Do you think governments should force nuclear power on 1)the population, and 2) onto generating companies? Seems too draconian to me and not in line with western values.

Having said that, government has to ensure the electricity system is stable, and of course lines companies have to ensure stability of supply. NZ has legislation requiring generators provide adequate generation to cope with shortgages etc, so this forces the electricity companies to carefully consider all options. They will build nuclear - if they absolutely have to for stability of supply. But right now wind and solar are economically attractive options. But my point is this seems like a generally good overall framework of decision making, that balances a free market with the state ensuring there is fundamental stability of supply

Regarding Halfnium, I do not know enough to really comment. However I was reading an article the other day that the world only has 50 years of cobalt left (ok it will be more in reality, but you hopefully see the point). The point Im making is many minerals have limited reserves. If Nuclear expands radically, it seems a fair bet some of its metals requirements are going to get expensive. Of course lets be fair, this is not unique to the nuclear industry, but nuclear power uses a lot of specialist metals, and its another problem to add to an industry with problems.